Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

[CrowCross]

That's what our faith leads us to believe, but we did not witness it, just like we didn't witness the year the earth was created. "This obviously can go both ways" --->>> @CrazyCalvinistUncle (this was my meaning)

...and Christ didn't rise from the dead because we didn't witness it.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Horsefeathers. The same issue applies.

"This here rock is 400,000 year old!"
"Oh really? Where you here when it was formed?"
"Well no...but it's next to this rock that's 410,000 years old"
"Oh...so you are 410,000 years old?"
"No no no...isotopes take x amount of time to degenerate..."
"Oh really? Have you timed them?"
"Well no...that would take millions of..."
"I see. And this study over here that shows isotopes degrading at rates that don't line up with your theories?"
"Well that's an anomoly..."

Ok.

On the flip side...I could argue for Radiometric measurements if I wanted too considering I posit that God create the Universe mature. But I'm trying to point out a weakness in certain Christian thinking. It has completely given in too the "scientific" narrative without even attempting to question it.

That's not how the science works.

 

[Munro]

With the genealogy in the Old Testament & the New Testament is why believers say that the earth and the universe is about 6,000 years old.

Is it not exactly 6,004 years now?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

That's not how the science works.

Who would you accept as an authority on how "science works"? Bunch of excellent scientists over at AiG...how about them?

 

[Musician]

...and Christ didn't rise from the dead because we didn't witness it.

The same principals apply to everything. Christianity is faith based, Science can be seen as the same but time usually presents corroborating evidence. As in the case of Christianity, evidence won't be available until the 2nd Coming.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Who would you accept as an authority on how "science works"? Bunch of excellent scientists over at AiG...how about them?

I accept the authority of scientists who publish their work in peer review journals.
I was disappointed many years ago by AiG and similar groups with their misrepresentation of science and their poor understanding of the literary context of the Bible. I admit that I haven't read much of their stuff since then.
I recommend groups such as Biologos and ISCAST as well as scientists/theologians such as John Lennox and Alistair McGrath.

 

[ChristB4us]

Is it not exactly 6,004 years now?

I could not tell you that exactly; but it is about 6,000 years old.

There was a report that the calendar is off buy 4 years from B.C. to A.D. but I cannot find that article again from before when I had tried to look for it again a while back and so I am sure I will not be able to find it again now.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

How old do you feel the planet and universe are? In years.

What if it's months?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Is it not exactly 6,004 years now?

No, at this point it would be 6,026 years. According to James Ussher, the world came into existence on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC—and somewhere around 6:00 pm, according to his Annals of the World (1658): "I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, AD 1, was 4,003 years, 70 days, and six hours." So, on October 23, 2023, the world should turn 6,027 years old.

Also, for whatever it's worth, according to Ussher, Adam and Eve were in the garden for just over a week, for he believed they were exiled "on the tenth day of the world" or Monday, November 1, 4004 BC.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Scientists recently tried dating rock from the same volcano, rock that was known to come from a flow in the past and from a recent flow (within a year). Neither sample could be dated correctly. The only reason they could even say that one sample was older than the other was due to direct observation.

Please identify these scientists and where they published those results. I require more details than your claim provides and need to look into it myself.

We don't have an age estimate ...

Answers in Genesis and most young-earth creationists disagree with you. They estimate the age of the heavens and the earth to be somewhere in the ballpark of 6,000 years. As Bodie Hodge explained (2007), "The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth's creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today."

That sounds like an age estimate to me.

Who would you accept as an authority on "how science works"? Bunch of excellent scientists over at AiG. How about them?

Who are the excellent scientists at Answers in Genesis? What is their area of research? Do they hold advanced degrees in that field of study? Have they conducted and published scientific research consistent with young-earth creationism in rigorously peer-reviewed journals? If so, have others attempted to reproduce those results and published their findings? (I am already aware of their theological insights published internally or within journals that share their specific worldview. I happen to value theology myself but, of course, it isn't science.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The problem with this [Theo-Evo] model is the fall of Adam and Eve.

How is the fall of Adam and Eve supposed to be a problem for this model?

"From the evolving population, who fell?" According to this model, all of mankind fell (i.e., became covenant-breakers or sinners) through Adam and his federal headship.

"What of the rest of the population?" Well, I did say all of mankind, so ...

"Who were Adam and Eve's parents?" This commits the complex question fallacy, insofar as your question presupposes they had parents. Although some do, an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution is not committed to believing that Adam and Eve had parents, as S. Joshua Swamidass clearly demonstrated in his book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019). At this point I lean toward believing they had parents, as does Denis R. Alexander, but I am still open to them being created de novo directly by God. Either idea works within this model, so I am not constrained.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I accept the authority of scientists who publish their work in peer review journals.
I was disappointed many years ago by AiG and similar groups with their misrepresentation of science and their poor understanding of the literary context of the Bible. I admit that I haven't read much of their stuff since then.
I recommend groups such as Biologos and ISCAST as well as scientists/theologians such as John Lennox and Alistair McGrath.

Peer reviewed journals by secular scientists. Heaven knows that those who hate God would have no bias against god. They are, after all, scientists. Check.

Well you run with that. Eventually, hopefully, your conscience will catch up with you.

 

[ChristB4us]

How old do you feel the planet and universe are? In years.

About 6,000 years if you use the genealogy in the O.T. & the N.T., one can get an approximation.

That's what our faith leads us to believe, but we did not witness it, just like we didn't witness the year the earth was created. "This obviously can go both ways" --->>> @CrazyCalvinistUncle (this was my meaning)

Do consider Jesus used scripture to testify that it is true & cannot be broken in defending Himself as God..

John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Link to Bible Gateway on word search on "not written" Not every reference is about the scripture but the majority testifies to His validation of scripture.

He validated why the sabbath day was created in creation.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Have you ever wondered why any other culture do not have a different number of days for a week? Being descendants of the only people of the ark, as being of the sons of God, Seth's godly lineage, it would explain why that knowledge is ingrained in every culture on earth.

 

[ChristB4us]

No, at this point it would be 6,026 years. According to James Ussher, the world came into existence on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC—and somewhere around 6:00 pm, according to his Annals of the World (1658): "I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, AD 1, was 4,003 years, 70 days, and six hours." So, on October 23, 2023, the world should turn 6,027 years old.

Also, for whatever it's worth, according to Ussher, Adam and Eve were in the garden for just over a week, for he believed they were exiled "on the tenth day of the world" or Monday, November 1, 4004 BC.

Interesting. Only because He had commanded them to go forth & multiply on that sixth day, I would have pegged it right after that day of rest, the seventh day, as I surmised the Lord left them on the seventh day before visiting them again. So it could very well be the 8th day of the world.

The tenth day of the world may very well be true, but it could have happened sooner like after that day of rest. I just do not see why they would not react to His commandment to go forth & multiply unless the fall was reasonably close after that day of rest & so it is within range of that.

We shall know the truth one day when we see Him face to face.

 

[CrowCross]

The same principals apply to everything. Christianity is faith based, Science can be seen as the same but time usually presents corroborating evidence. As in the case of Christianity, evidence won't be available until the 2nd Coming.

Eh, maybe.

When the rapture occurs and the christians disappear...there will be an excuse such as alien abduction or all the negative vibration from the christians have been removed.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Eh, maybe.

When the rapture occurs and the christians disappear...there will be an excuse such as alien abduction or all the negative vibration from the christians have been removed.

When the church is removed humanity will literally have next to no brakes. Perhaps none if the Spirit does not restrain. Personally I would not want to be around with mankind unfettered in all aspects.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

@makesends @Gus Bovona @Mikeuk

Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?​

NO Next question??

 

[CrowCross]

How is the fall of Adam and Eve supposed to be a problem for this model?

The bible speaks of only two people on earth at one time in history...in the beginning.
Evo-ism speaks of populations evolving...they are saying there was a proto-human population that eventually evolved into humans.

"From the evolving population, who fell?" According to this model, all of mankind fell (i.e., became covenant-breakers or sinners) through Adam and his federal headship.

Continuing from above.....did all of the evolved humans fall at once or from the humans that had evolved from proton-humans was it only Adam and Eves progeny?

"What of the rest of the population?" Well, I did say all of mankind, so ...

If I have been understanding you correctly you are saying humans evolved from a proto-sub-human population. Then at some point in time the entire population which evolved into humans fell. It was not just Adam, Eve and their descendants that have fallen.

"Who were Adam and Eve's parents?" This commits the complex question fallacy, insofar as your question presupposes they had parents. Although some do, an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution is not committed to believing that Adam and Eve had parents, as S. Joshua Swamidass clearly demonstrated in his book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019). At this point I lean toward believing they had parents, as does Denis R. Alexander, but I am still open to them being created de novo directly by God. Either idea works within this model, so I am not constrained.

Is Swamidass saying...humans evolved and Adam and Eve didn't have parents because they were a separate creation and placed amongst those other humans that did evolve? Or is he saying Adam and Eve had parents which would be a requirement if they actually were a by-product of evo-ism.

 

[CrowCross]

When the church is removed humanity will literally have next to no brakes. Perhaps none if the Spirit does not restrain. Personally I would not want to be around with mankind unfettered in all aspects.

It would pretty much suck when shortly after the trib begins the red horse comes and kills 1/4 of the worlds population.

 

[ChristB4us]

NO Next question??

Then how do you deal with the genealogy in the O.T. & the N.T.?

How do you deal with how death & decay even came into the world because of Adam's sin?